Supposedly some berths to the non-NTRA tourney up for grabs, and all the prizes and bragging rights due a real champion, and nothing up on the site yet and even if there was it's all by TSC number. Anyone we know do good? Chrissy? Commander?

Doubtful -- if he did, there would be 10 pages of self-conratulatory posts over at the other forum...not to mention another 20 from the tu tu toadie that follows John around like a lovesick schoolgirl.

We'll just go ahead and mark you wrong on this one, Nick. Not that it's a surprise or anything. Congrats on your impeccable record though.

Not me. I was up in the "starting gate theater" for a bit. There was a guy who had a pretty enthusiastic celebration every time he cashed a ticket. I believe his name was "Brian." He was sure acting like he was going to win.

Cat had 6 in yesterday and Block (I think) 3. Not 1 1st or 2nd. Coincidence?

Not a coincidence at all -- too many brain dead bettors just use Catalano and Block in all their bets, so if these guys go cold like they did on Sunday, yeah, you might get big payoffs.

That said, the P9 races were about as formful as you can hope from any straight stretch of 9 races, anywhere: post-time favorites ran 1st or 2nd in seven of the 9 races, including 4 wins. The fooler could have been the 6th, where Peyote Patty was the winner, but IMO you had to have her on your ticket IF you were really trying to hit the darn thing, not just trying to be clever with some useless $16 ticket.

The guy who hit the thing through TVG deserves his reward, for sure, but I can't help but think that he got real lucky that there are more Catalano & Block lemmings than actual handicappers playing into AP -- under similar circumstances (i.e., 7 post-time favorites hitting the ticket) that same P9 would have paid $2000 elsewhere, tops.

P.S. That's why I think it's so funny when the Arlington Park commercials run on TV, touting their higher trifecta and superfecta payoffs...seems to be the same as saying, "Man, our bettors are STUPID! Come get some!".

Very interesting results up on the AP website. I was targeting $500 to get into top 5. Ended up that 380 took first place and 300 took fifth. I would have played way differently if I would have forseen this, however I'm sure others would have changed their risk level as well.

Not a coincidence at all -- too many brain dead bettors just use Catalano and Block in all their bets, so if these guys go cold like they did on Sunday, yeah, you might get big payoffs.

That said, the P9 races were about as formful as you can hope from any straight stretch of 9 races, anywhere: post-time favorites ran 1st or 2nd in seven of the 9 races, including 4 wins. The fooler could have been the 6th, where Peyote Patty was the winner, but IMO you had to have her on your ticket IF you were really trying to hit the darn thing, not just trying to be clever with some useless $16 ticket.

The guy who hit the thing through TVG deserves his reward, for sure, but I can't help but think that he got real lucky that there are more Catalano & Block lemmings than actual handicappers playing into AP -- under similar circumstances (i.e., 7 post-time favorites hitting the ticket) that same P9 would have paid $2000 elsewhere, tops.

P.S. That's why I think it's so funny when the Arlington Park commercials run on TV, touting their higher trifecta and superfecta payoffs...seems to be the same as saying, "Man, our bettors are STUPID! Come get some!".

All that said, it's a tough, tough bet to hit. I learned that the hard way the last few days. Unless you've got unlimited bankroll, it's about finding singles, and I disagree with your claim that you had to spread past Closeout to be "serious" about hitting the bet yesterday. Adding horses in a nine-race sequence gets expensive in a hurry, so you've got to take your lumps with the obvious ones, and a multiple graded stakes winner against a field with one listed stakes winner is the right spot to do that, dull try before that or not.

Plus, how deep do you go in the first race? There were three obvious horses to use who had competitive form, and two runners with poor form for the level ran 1-2 with the three obvious ones running out of the Exacta. What are you to do if you're trying to hit the thing - go five deep in a seven horse race with only three obvious contenders just in case?

In retrospect, there were good places to single. We singled Brezing Rain. We considered singling Ming Sling and Ashtonofun, but wound up going two deep in both of those spots. Would we have used Patty had we singled both of those? Probably. Would we still have been knocked out on leg 1? Yep.

excellent points, Mr. Spencer...A very difficult bet, made more difficult by a surface that still eludes my handicapping skills. Very easy to look back and see 7 post time favorites, but no more than four or five of the morning-line variety. Even Breezing Rain looks more obvious after watching the performance, than before it, and Ashtonoffun needed to show the previous stretchout was no fluke, in addition to the poor draw. Ming Sling was first time F.C., but Cat had a drop down that hammered the choice weeks earlier and...well, we can go on and on.

Point being, it is a fun bet, with nice possiblities, but it really is a sucker bet, and treading lightly is the only way to go.

All that said, it's a tough, tough bet to hit. I learned that the hard way the last few days. Unless you've got unlimited bankroll, it's about finding singles, and I disagree with your claim that you had to spread past Closeout to be "serious" about hitting the bet yesterday.

The common view is that "it's about finding singles", but astute serial race bettors like Steve Leving, Steve Crist, and Barry Meadow will tell you that it's just as important to find "separator" picks -- the ones that bust everyone else out, but the winners always seem to manage to have on their tickets.

You can be stubborn if you'd like and claim that Closeout was a good single, but not only do the results run counter to that, so do Closeout's pp's -- she's somewhat of an "all or nothing" type, as far as I am concerned, and I'm not surprised at all that having not won the race she didn't run 2nd either. Some trainers don't "send" every race, either, and how much do you want to bet that this was simply a BC prep for Closeout?

Additional coverage was desperately needed in this race for serious bettors. Singles are for races where one horse towers over the rest of the field, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That wasn't this race. Most stakes races aren't. A tip for you, and anyone else reading along: don't make the same mistake in the upcoming Breeders Cup races.

Very easy to look back and see 7 post time favorites, but no more than four or five of the morning-line variety.

Fair criticism...but I wasn't redboarding, per se, just disabusing the notion that this was some crazy card full of bizarre results. It wasn't. The public usually gets the favorite into the exacta only about half the time, so 7 of 9 exacta hits is pretty formful no matter how you slice it.

Now, as compared to the morning line? Sorry, we can't go there until we get a good morning linemaker in Chicago. It's been terrible for years here, and at both tracks: still see rookie mistakes -- like Catalano ship-ins from Florida listed at 6-1 when they don't have a prayer of being even money -- too often to take the Chicago tracks ML seriously.

The common view is that "it's about finding singles", but astute serial race bettors like Steve Leving, Steve Crist, and Barry Meadow will tell you that it's just as important to find "separator" picks -- the ones that bust everyone else out, but the winners always seem to manage to have on their tickets.

You can be stubborn if you'd like and claim that Closeout was a good single, but not only do the results run counter to that, so do Closeout's pp's -- she's somewhat of an "all or nothing" type, as far as I am concerned, and I'm not surprised at all that having not won the race she didn't run 2nd either. Some trainers don't "send" every race, either, and how much do you want to bet that this was simply a BC prep for Closeout?

Additional coverage was desperately needed in this race for serious bettors. Singles are for races where one horse towers over the rest of the field, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That wasn't this race. Most stakes races aren't. A tip for you, and anyone else reading along: don't make the same mistake in the upcoming Breeders Cup races.

Well, while I appreciate the "tip," I have progressed slightly past Racing 101 at some point in my life, but I'll take heed of the wisdom all the same.

The problem is that if singles are for races with blah blah no ifs ands or buts, then there is no single at all on the card yesterday, as Closeout is the closest any horse comes to such a towering, imposing advantage that you'd require for a single. Your assertion that she's a bad single because she's an "all or nothing" type must, of course, be taken with a grain of classy salt. I'll save my time, and give you the basic horseplayer respect under the assumption that you somehow have even the slightest grasp on the difference between being "all or nothing" against graded stakes company and the idea that the same horse would be an "all or nothing" type against what essentially amounted to a NW3X event.

So let's just say she's a bad single. Now, with no single, the bare minimum for a ticket yesterday is a mere $512, going two deep in every race, which certainly doesn't do much to help our little problem from the first race, does it? Or perhaps that race was as blindingly obvious and easy to reduce in retrospect as the Closeout race, if you'd care to enlighten me?

I'll just say that if putting $512 or into a Pick(n) when required is troubling to a bettor, he's either undercapitalized, or is outside his risk / tolerance comfort zone.

Well that's the bare, absolute, minimum based on your theory of when a single is acceptable.

So let's keep it going - you're going to use Peyote Patty but not Never Retreat, the only other stakes winner in there? Now you're at 3 deep there. How deep are you going in the first race to get one of those horses, 4 deep? 5 deep? Very quickly you're getting up to owning 3% of the entire pool with just your ticket.

So let's just say she's a bad single. Now, with no single, the bare minimum for a ticket yesterday is a mere $512, going two deep in every race, which certainly doesn't do much to help our little problem from the first race, does it?

Well...how to put this in a kind and respectful way?

I'll just say that if putting $512 ($1024, or more) into a Pick(n) when required is troubling to a bettor, he's either undercapitalized, or is outside his risk / tolerance comfort zone.

The critical mistake bettors make with these bets is trying to "fit" their selections into a budgeted amount of money. That's an almost guaranteed loser...unless you come up with a common ticket that hits, everybody else has it too, and if you are lucky, it pays more than you put in. Not for me, and probably the defining reason the real money doesn't come outside to play until there is a serious carryover.

Consistent, winning bettors construct their tickets based on their contenders (grouping by A, B, C is the common way, but there are plenty of others just as worthy), calculate the cost...then decide whether on not to make the bet. Everybody has bankroll issues, but backing into a number just to get the bet in is the bettor beating himself. You can always skip the bet today and wait for a better spot.

It won't work. You're frustrated, and you can't help but be sarcastic now, so you will just ridicule anything else I say.

If what I have said in the past few posts don't resonate with you, or just make you mad, then I can guarantee that for whatever reason, the Pick 9 isn't for you. Probably the same for the Pick 6. Which is fine -- these bets are best left alone by the majority of bettors, unless they can follow DoctorLock's excellent "tread lightly" suggestion. Go ahead and throw in a few $16 dollar tickets -- who knows? You might get lucky.

The problem with ace handicappers like you is that you somehow believe that you are of equal talent when it comes to betting...and you probably aren't even close. Damn near everyone left at the tracks these days can handicap effectively, but well-capitialized & sharp guys that can also construct winning Pick(n) tickets are far and few between -- why do you think these things are so damned hard to hit?

I could redboard a few tickets, and you could reply why I'm full of it -- total waste of time for both of us. Instead, I suggest we compare notes the next time there is some big local carryover.

It won't work. You're frustrated, and you can't help but be sarcastic now, so you will just ridicule anything else I say.

If what I have said in the past few posts don't resonate with you, or just make you mad, then I can guarantee that for whatever reason, the Pick 9 isn't for you. Probably the same for the Pick 6. Which is fine -- these bets are best left alone by the majority of bettors, unless they can follow DoctorLock's excellent "tread lightly" suggestion. Go ahead and throw in a few $16 dollar tickets -- who knows? You might get lucky.

The problem with ace handicappers like you is that you somehow believe that you are of equal talent when it comes to betting...and you probably aren't even close. Damn near everyone left at the tracks these days can handicap effectively, but well-capitialized & sharp guys that can also construct winning Pick(n) tickets are far and few between -- why do you think these things are so damned hard to hit?

I could redboard a few tickets, and you could reply why I'm full of it -- total waste of time for both of us. Instead, I suggest we compare notes the next time there is some big local carryover.

No, see, now I'm interested. And I can't help but be sarcastic because someone brought the sanctimonious, condescending tone of voice into the thread, and yes, that flips a switch with me.

Now, in the spirit of being honest about it, I really am interested in what you'd say about yesterday....and I'll be the first to admit that I had an atrocious summer compared to last, lost my pants in the pick-9 several days in a row, said Dynaforce couldn't win the Beverly D. without a time machine, and made an ass of myself in the press box just days ago insisting that Tazz was a mortal lock. The problem is that your assumption about my humility, or lack thereof, is that it's wrong. I have opinions, and I give them, but nobody who has worked with me in this game will tell you that I shut my ears when I think I'm right or that I've ever once considered giving up listening to anything anyone who's been in this game longer than me has to say. I'll give you a pass because you've never met me, but the idea of that is actually offensive to me.

EDIT: So saracastic, in fact that I went totally off my rails with the rest of this post. Will leave it at this.

I'll just say that if putting $512 ($1024, or more) into a Pick(n) when required is troubling to a bettor, he's either undercapitalized, or is outside his risk / tolerance comfort zone.

The critical mistake bettors make with these bets is trying to "fit" their selections into a budgeted amount of money. That's an almost guaranteed loser...unless you come up with a common ticket that hits, everybody else has it too, and if you are lucky, it pays more than you put in. Not for me, and probably the defining reason the real money doesn't come outside to play until there is a serious carryover.

Consistent, winning bettors construct their tickets based on their contenders (grouping by A, B, C is the common way, but there are plenty of others just as worthy), calculate the cost...then decide whether on not to make the bet. Everybody has bankroll issues, but backing into a number just to get the bet in is the bettor beating himself. You can always skip the bet today and wait for a better spot.

So, back to the original question, who won the AP Handicapping Contest? I saw they posted the top 3 totals, and the player's Twin Spires Card numbers, but didn't list a name. I saw a list of who was in the contest, that had names and TSC #'s, but after 3 or 4 tries of trying to remember the winning player's TSC #, I couldn't match up to a name and TSC # in the list, I said 'Screw It' and gave up, I didn't need to know that badly that I can't wait until it is published.